Replies to post #778373 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[trunkmonk]

Only in the minds of a hate filled preferred who wants commons stock price to fail. Wrong again, fact check with Carney first before embarrassing yourself. Ps really can’t distinguish right from wrong, no wonder laser focused efforts in courts have failed every time for Ps.

[HappyAlways]

K19, if I remember correctly, SCOTUS ruled that FHFA had the right to make decision on behalf of the shareholders regarding the NWS, as long as the decision is beneficial to the GSEs or FHFA. But that doesn’t make NWS legal, given jury trial ruled that FHFA did breach the good faith in making the NWS contract. So, NWS is still illegal in a different prospective.

[blownaccount9]

Ahh crap. This was somewhat central to my original thesis of how this goes down when they get released. hmmpf. The more I post here the less certain I feel about the possibility of hitting the jackpot upon release. What does Ackman see that I am not seeing? He's in at an average of like $2-2.50 per share for like 10% of each company right?

[DaJester]

Oh boy, here we go again..

"There is a huge, huge difference between saying that the NWS illegally violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and saying that the NWS itself is illegal. Just like there is a huge difference between saying that FHFA and FnF acted in bad faith (which the jury did NOT find) and saying that they violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (which the jury DID find), which is a mistake you made in the past."

Agreed, to an extent. The action of FHFA in putting the NWS into the agreement violated the contract rights and fair expectations of shareholders. The NWS as an action independent of anything is not illegal. Just like if the govt decided to confiscate all of the new B-21 stealth bombers in the interest of national security, that step could be legal. But it could also violate a contract with Northrop Grumman if it was not in good faith. Northrop could claim a contract violation even from a LEGAL action. Both can be true at the same time. And no, I did not make a "mistake" on the bad faith language, as I explained it's just easier to type and I should have been more clear since you like to nitpick the specific language people use and miss the core point they are trying to make.

"Read the beginning of the second paragraph on page 13 of Lamberth's opinion regarding defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment:"

I suggest you read the third paragraph that follows.

Lamberth does not destroy my argument because I'm not saying the NWS is an illegal act. I'm saying FHFA cannot implement it into any agreements because it violates shareholder rights. With your level of attention to detail, I don't know how you are missing this point. You can keep saying the NWS is not illegal until you are blue in the face and you'd be right. That doesn't mean the FHFA can continue to use that language in the contracts moving forward.

[Ace Trader]

Everyone has to understand HERA
Quote:
The NWS was fully legal. The Supreme Court said so. Lamberth echoed that here, saying that the NWS was authorized by statute. The distinction he made in that sentence is that FHFA can commit a legal act ("statutorily authorized", in his terms) but still be liable for damages.
End Quote:

SCOTUS only ruled that the FHFA was following the law set out in HERA! It did not rule that the NWS was legal. When the FHFA installed the NWS, it did hurt investors and that comes under the relum of acting in bad faith and fair dealing. A jury found that to be true. HERA is the law and what's in HERA lays out what the FHFA can do ! Why ?

Now that's the end of it. This case cannot be used to remove the NWS and make it illegal in the future.Because the NWS is legal because it's in the realms of what the FHFA can do. But the effect of what the NWS did to investors is what the jury found to be ( acting in bad faith and fear dealing ) to investors.